Consequential Orders and Directions - COPA v Wright

Author  Satoshi Nakamoto  Source  Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Mellor)  Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch) (16 July 2024) Immediately after hearing the evidence and arguments in a trial to determine whether Dr Craig Steven Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto, the originator of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, Mr Justice Mellor announced on 14 March 2024 that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. The question of whether or not Dr Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto had been an issue in two actions:  first an action that the  Crypto Open Patent Alliance ("COPA")  had brought against Dr Wright and, secondly, an action that Dr Wright and two companies that he controlled had brought against BTC CORE and others,   The learned judge set out his reasons for finding that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch) on 20 May 2024.  I discussed that judgment in Bitcoin - COPA v Wright   on 11 June 20

Trade Marks and Copyright - AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick KC)  AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC) (8 July 2024) UK Innovations Group Ltd . ("UKIG") describes itself on its website as "a progressive, dynamic, energetic, obsessive and innovative business turning the heat storage range cooker concept on its head.". It has developed an electronic control ("eControl") system which it installs in heat storage range cookers known as "Stone Cookers ". However, its eControl systems can also be fitted to AGA cookers that have been converted from fossil fuel heat sources to electricity.  UKIG has converted 26 second-hand AGA cookers to electric power with eControl systems and offered them for sale under both AGA and eControl branding as in the photos above.  AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd ("ARG")  objects to UKIG's marketing and has brought trade mark and copyright infringement pr

Patents - Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd.

Author  Ciencias Españolas  Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)    Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat) (08 March 2024) The High Court has power under s.70 (1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and hear and dispose of the cause or matter wholly or partially with their assistance if it thinks it expedient to do so. Subsection (3) of the same section requires rules of court to make provision for the appointment of scientific advisers to assist the Patents Court in proceedings under the Patents Act 1977 and for regulating the functions of such advisers. S.70 is implemented by CPR 35.15 .  Para (2) of that rule mandates the assessor to assist the court in dealing with a matter in which the assessor has skill and experience. He or she is obliged by CPR 35. 15 (3) to take such part in the proceedings as the court may direct and in particular th